Skip to main content

About this Show

U.S. House of Representatives

News News/Business. Live coverage of House proceedings.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 91 (627 MHz)






Libya 33, Benghazi 23, Brown 22, Us 21, Washington 18, U.s. 17, Romney 14, United States 14, Syria 12, America 11, Obama 8, Tripoli 8, Elizabeth Warren 8, Stevens 7, Scott Brown 6, Pat Kennedy 4, Western Massachusetts 4, Clinton 3, Ms. Lamb 3, Grover Norquist 3,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    U.S. House of Representatives    News  News/Business. Live  
   coverage of House proceedings.  

    October 10, 2012
    5:00 - 8:00pm EDT  

he lived and worked closely together in an atmosphere that is common to an expeditionary post. ambassador stevens was an avid runner and played tennis ambassador stevens was an avid runner and played tennis as well. thw sst was heavily involved when he ran. i ran with him on several occasions. the sst provided an important link for the country team to soc africa. there was a good exchange of information between soc africa and the rso. there was a great relationship. i reported three times a week through video teleconference and sent daily situation reports. i have the communications ability to provide a direct link to soc africa. i no longer have the emails or documents, as much of this was on their servers and computers.
most of this is from memory. the state department's decision not to extend sst security beyond the fifth of august, terminated our work in this capacity. we were in the process of changing title back to 10. we were continually updated with reports i sent to my military chain of command. the rso sent information on security and threats in a similar matter up his chain of command. while the sound of gunfire subsided from february to april, the situation remains unstable. libyans struggled with the transition government, but hesitated to make decisions and were forced to rely upon local and tribal militias of varying degrees of loyalty.
in late spring, the police were allowed to return to work to help with traffic, but were limited to that only. fighting between militias was common. militias separated -- they appeared to be disintegrating into freelance criminal operations. targeted attacks against westerners were increasing. in june, the ambassador received a threat on facebook with a public announcement he would like to run around the embassy compound in tripoli. when i arrived in february, three teams were on the ground. ambassador katz was forced -- lost one of his teams. the ambassador struggled with renewing the sst beyond april 5. that is ambassador stevens. the second msd team was withdrawn after the departure of critz. restricted from performing security work only and limited only to train local guard force members in july.
the remaining msd was withdrawn at the same time the sst was terminated. the security in benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there. the situation remained uncertain and reports from some libyans indicated it was getting worse. diplomatic security remained weak. in april, only one u.s. diplomatic security agent was stationed there. the rso struggle to obtain additional personnel, but was never able to obtain the numbers he felt comfortable with. i hope the information i provide will be put together with datapoint from others. so and after a picture can be obtained. we need to be dedicated to the understanding, to understand the problems has surrounded this attack in order to find a solution. our failure to do so will result in repeated instances
that will allow our adversaries to take an advantage over us. my purpose is to prevent their ability to take the life of another ambassador. or kill another valuable and talented public servant working for the diplomatic service of their country. >> thank you. mr. nordstrom. >> good morning, chairman, ranking members and other distinguished members of the committee. my name is eric nordstrom and i currently serve as a special supervisory special agent with the u.s. department of state diplomatic security. i join the department april 1998 and a surge in domestic and overseas postings including washington, d.c., honduras, ethiopia, india, and most recently as the regional security officer at the u.s. embassy in tripoli, libya.
the position i held from september 21, 2011 until july 26, 2012. at the regional security officer, or rso at u.s. embassy in tripoli, as armed as the principal advisor to ambassadors credits and stevens and security and on for some matters. i am here today to provide testimony in support of your inquiry into the tragic affairs of september 11, 2012. including the murders of the four americans. i had the pleasure of working with ambassador stevens to in the final months of my tour in libya and would echo what many are saying, the loss of ambassador stevens is not only tragic for his family, sad for our country, but his death will prove to be a devastating loss for libya. they're struggling to recover from its recent civil war. my family and i would like to offer personal condolences to the families of these four
patriots who gave their lives in the service of their country. my contribution to our nation's efforts in libya will prove to be only a small part of a wider effort. there are many of us dedicated to the mission in libya both at home and abroad. to my colleagues who served with me and to those who are presently there in the aftermath of this attack, you have your countries sincere thanks and prayers. let me say a word about the evening of september 11. i had not seen an attack of such ferocity and intensity previously in libya, nor in my town of the diplomatic security service. i am concerned this attack signals a new security reality, just as the 1983 beirut marine barracks bombing did for the marines, the 1998 east african embassy bombings did for the state department, and 9/11 did for our entire country.
however, we must remember is critical that we balance our risk mitigation efforts with the needs of our diplomats to do their jobs. the answer cannot be to operate from a bunker. arriving in tripoli in the midst of the libyan civil war, it was immediately obvious to me that the post-revolution in libya was a weakened state, exhausted from their civil war, and operating under fragmented and paralyzed government institutions. they were barely able to protect themselves from armed gangs, gaddafi loyalists, or roving militias. as a result, the libyan temporary government was unable to extend secure the assets to diplomatic missions in customary ways that we have become expected -- that we expect around the world. we cannot rely on the libyan government for security, intelligence, and law- enforcement help to identify
emerging threats or to ask them for assistance in mitigating those threats. in benghazi, however, the government through the february 17 was able to provide as consistent help since the earliest days of the revolution. routine civil unrest, militia on militia violence, in general lawlessness, and motor vehicle accidents were the primary threats facing our mission and personal during my time in libya. as colonel wood noted, in the spring of 2012, we noted an increasing number of attacks and incidents which appeared to target for an affiliated organizations. in response to these incidents, we implemented a number of changes to our security posture. designed to mitigate those threats and disrupt any planning by would-be attackers. those efforts include reviewing and practicing our emergency preparedness drills, most important, we reiterated our request at all levels of government for a consistent
armed host nation security force to support the mission. we also requested security staffing and extensions of the dod secure support team. in my opinion, the primary security staffing issue that we dealt with was maintaining u.s. security personnel, whether diplomatic security agents or secure the support team members, for a sufficient amount time to enable the full training and deployment of a local bodyguard unit. in early july 2012, prior to my departure, post requested continued staffing of 15 u.s. security professionals. either ds field office agents, mobil security agents, or dot sst personnel. plus retention of a sixth agent multiple training team that would work with our newly created bodyguard unit.
earlier opposed extension requests for our dod ss team in 2011 and march 2012 were approved. also in march 2012, are requested staffing levels in tripoli of full -- five full- time agents to be permanently assigned there, 12 temporary duty ds agents, and six mobile security ds agents, again, to create our newly created a bodyguard unit. our long-term security plan in libya was to deploy an armed locally hired libyan bodyguard unit. due to libyan political sensitivities, armed private security teams were not allowed to operate in libya. that was the case under gaddafi
and was the case under the free libya. our existing uniform static local guard force, both in tripoli and benghazi, were unarmed. similar to our local guard forces that many other posts around the world. their job is simple -- it is to observe, report, and alert armed host nation security or armed response forces, possibly ds agents of that is the case. the use of local nationals as armed bodyguards is a routine practice in the department and often do so to comply with the local firearms regulations of the host nation. local nationals provide us with continuity, local expertise, threat awareness in their community, and language and cultural skills. i am confident the committee will conclude that officers and employees of the department of state, diplomatic security service, and mission libya conducted themselves professionally and with careful attention to managing the people and budgets in a way that reflected the gravity of the task.
i am proud of the work our team accomplished in libya under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. the protection of our nation's diplomats, embassies and consulates, and the work produced there is deserving of the time and treasure invested. i am glad to further discuss my expenses and hope it provides beneficial to the committee, the state department, and my final ds agents -- fellow ds agents. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. may god bless our country as we work toward peace in a contentious world. i stand ready to answer any questions you might have of me. >> thank you. ms. lamb. could you turn on your mic, please? that's all right, your first time. >> by name is charlene lamb. and that the assistant secretary for international programs and the bureau of diplomatic security at the department of state.
i have been in law enforcement for 35 years, including 17 consecutive years stationed abroad as a regional security officer in nicaragua, kuwait, guatemala, and germany. i am here today to share best information to date about what happened in benghazi on september 11. as you know, there are ongoing investigations and reviews being conducted, and we are speaking today with an incomplete picture. but as this process moves forward and more information becomes available, we will continue to engage closely with congress. let me begin by describing the actual compound in benghazi. it is more than 300 yards long, and nearly 100 yards wide. the main building was divided into two sections, the public section included common areas
and meeting space. the private section was a residential area that included a safe haven. a second building, building b, housed diplomatic security agents. the tactical operations center occupied a third building. the fourth building on the compound served as barracks for the libyan brigade members. after acquiring the compound, we made a number of security upgrades. among other steps, we extended the height of the outer wall 12 feet with masonry concrete, barbed wire, and razor wire. we increased the external lighting and erected jersey barriers outside the perimeter. we also added equipment to detect explosives as well as in any danger notification system. we install security grills on windows, accessible from the ground, and included escape
when as with emergency releases. there were five diplomatic security agents on the compound september 11. there were also three members of the libyan february 17 brigade. in addition, a well-trained u.s. quick reaction security team was stationed nearby at the embassy annex. all of these measures and upgrades were taken in coordination with security officials in benghazi, tripoli, and washington. i work closely with more than 275 facilities are around the world, determining the right level of security for each one. it is intensive, ongoing, constantly evolving process. one that i appreciate and understand from my own time on the ground as a diplomatic security officer. that brings me to the events of september 11 itself.
at approximately 9:40 p.m. local time, dozens of attackers launched a full-scale assault. they forced their way to the pedestrian gates, used diesel fuel to set fire to the libyan february 17 brigade members barracks, and then proceeded toward the main building. a diplomatic security agent working in the tactical operations center immediately activated the eminent danger notification system. he also alerted the quick reaction security team station nearby. the libyan february 17 brigade, the embassy in tripoli, and the diplomatic security command center in washington. one agent, ambassador stevens and sean smith, the information management officer and the safe haven, the attackers used diesel fuel to set the main building ablaze.
thick smoke rapidly filled the entire structure. the agent began leading the ambassador and sean smith for the emergency escape window. nearing unconsciousness himself, the agent opened the emergency escape grill window and crawled out. he then realized they had become separated in the smoke. so he reentered and searched the building multiple times. finally, the agent, suffering from severe smoke inhalation, barely able to breathe or speak, exited to the roof. other agents retrieved their submachine guns from building b. when they attempted to return to the main building, they encountered armed attackers and doubled back. they regrouped, made their way to a nearby armored vehicle, then drove over to assist the agent on the roof and search for the ambassador and mr. smith.
after numerous attempts, they found mr. smith, unfortunately, he was already deceased. they still could not find the ambassador. the quick reaction security team arrived with 40 members of the libyan february 17 brigade. they all continued the search for the ambassador. at approximately 11:00 p.m., the libyans insisted for everyone's safety that they needed to evacuate the site. there was a final search for the ambassador before leaving the and next in an armored vehicle. they took heavy fire as they pulled away from the main building and on the street outside the compound. they were able to make their way to the annex. >> the gentlelady will suspend. the gentleman will state his point of order. >> i am concern we are getting into classified issues that
would be totally inappropriate in an open forum such as this. >> gentle lady,ms. lamb, is it your intent to declassify any and all material in the statement? >> the information we are presented in open session is entirely on classified. >> mr. chairman, i totally object to the use of that photo. >> the gentleman will state his reasons. >> i believe it to be classified information that should be not -- should not be disseminated in a public forum such as we have here today. >> breaking member, i was just wondering -- these are people from the state -- ranking member, these are people from the state department. they apparently have clearance to show this information. i would assume they would not
come here unless it was cleared. >> i appreciate the gentleman's comments. are these now declassified or are you declassifying them at this hearing? is that correct? is this clear through your channels to be given here today? >> this information is available for public dissemination. >> ok. the gentleman's point of order, although noted, it is the prerogative of the executive branch to determine what is not classified. the one thing i would note, my able staff has compared the opening statement of ms. lamb. to last night's press conference. it appears her opening statement is the one that should have been given to us last night since it is the one that was given to the press. we will be set -- >> can i make one more comment? >> i was told specifically that
while i was in libya, i should not and could not talk about what you are showing here today. >> mr. chairman, if i might, this is commercial digital imagery from a commercial satellite source, sir. >> i appreciate that. ultimately, i will side with the ministration they have a right to show it. i would again recognize that we were shown documents this morning in camera that work on classified, but were not turned over to the committee. if you have anything else you intend to use, if it has not been provided to the committee, i shall suggest those materials be provided at this time. it is your prerogative to declassify, but it is not your brought in to tell a member of congress there is something that is classified and come to an open hearing and say it is not. mr. chaffetz this is it with your people. i ask that you rectify this in
the future. >> is there question? point of order. i just have one question so that we will be clear. we do not want any misconceptions. ambassador, can we get that on google? >> this is not a point of order. >> i just want to know. >> thank you. please reset to 8 minutes. if you can finish in two minutes , we two minutes-- to 2 minutes. if you can finish in two minutes, we appreciate it. >> the annex started taking mortar fire. it was during this mortar attack that tyron woods and glen doughterty were killed. security officers arrived and exported the arm -- remaining americans to the airport.
the ambassador's body was that the benghazi general hospital. the department coordinated the transfer of his remains to the airport. before i close, i would like to say that the men and women who risked their lives in the service of our country are heroes. i have served with many of our security professionals around the world. they are my friends and my colleagues. i trust them with my life. thank you. >> thank you. i would direct that the chart the taken down. upon further reflection, although commercially available, in this hearing room, we are not going to point out details of what may still be a facility of the united states government for more facilities.
you may continue. i respect your right to deliver what you want. but i will caution you that that which is told to us on a classified spaces needs to remain that way. you cannot have it one day in a classified briefing, which i attended yesterday, and the same material be presented on classified the next day. the ambassador is recognized. >> thank you very much. distinguished members of the committee. i'd like to share a few words with you. libyan space significant challenges as they make the transition from an oppressive dictatorship to a stable and prosperous democracy. it will be an extraordinary honor to represent the united states during this historic period of transition in your -- in libya. we understand why christopher stevens went to libya, his passion for the country and his mission.
he believes no talent is too big our too hard in our national security or value is at stake. that is what is in stake at the best at stake in libya. we will do our best to answer your -- that is what is at stake in libya. we will do our best to answer your questions. there may be information that is classified and can only be dealt with in classified sessions. as secretary clinton has said. the american people expect that the family who lost loved ones -- families who lost loved ones deserve an accurate accounting. we lost friends and colleagues, a cross section of those who put their lives on the line every day. in the inherently dangerous work of diplomatic service to our nation. the secretary has already appointed a review board and is working to determine if our
security systems and procedures where appropriate in light of the threat environment and whether they were properly implemented. the secretary has asked us to work as quickly and transparency as pot -- transparently as possible. this is a complicated review that will take time. we will be better able to assess the information we have. until then, it is an incomplete picture and, as a result, our answers today will be incomplete. we have always made clear we were given the best information we had at the time. for example, if any administration official, including any career official, were on television sunday, september 16, they would have said what ambassador rice said. the information she had at that point from the intelligence committee was the same that i had at that point.
clearly, we know more today than we did after the attack. but we will continue consulting with you throughout this process. >> a portion of today's house oversight committee on diplomatic security in libya. you can see the entire hearing later tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. in 90 minutes, c-span's campaign 2012 coverage continues with a massachusetts senate race -- senate debate. see it live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. in the meantime, more questions about diplomatic security at today's white house briefing with press secretary jay carney. >> good afternoon, ladies and german. thanks for being here. i would note that it has been awhile since we have had a briefing here.
some folks to comment on this seem not to know that when the president travels, i or josh travel with him, and we briefed on the road, and we have been breathing regularly on air force one or elsewhere, but it is good to be back with you today. i have no announcements at the top, so i will go straight to your questions. >> a couple of questions on libya. the state department had a briefing last night. in the context of that, they said they never concluded that the assault on benghazi was part of a protest on the anti-muslim film. we heard from you and others that that was the underlying cause of the assault. is that not problematic that two arms of the administration of the white house come to different conclusions from the very beginning about what happened? >> let's be clear about what the
state department is saying -- pat kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, spoke on the hill today about this very matter. i will read from his prepared testimony. "no one in the administration has claimed to know all the answers. we have always made clear that we are giving the best information we have at the time, and that information has devolved. for example, if any administration official, including any career official, were on television sunday september 6 -- send a september 16, it would have said what ambassador rice said," which goes to your point. "the information she had from the intelligence community was the same as i had at that point. as time went on, additional information became available. clearly we know more today than we did on the sunday after the attack, but as the process moves forward and more information becomes available, we will make sure to continue consulting with you." that was pat kennedy today. the point we have made all
along is that initial assessments in the immediate aftermath of the attack in benghazi were made, and it was a government-wide assessment that was the foundation of what ambassador rice said. it was what we based on the limited facts we had available at that time. ambassador rights clearly said on sunday that these were preliminary conclusions based on the facts and intelligence we had available at the time, and they were conclusions of the intelligence community for the entire government. i have made clear repeatedly when i have been here and on the road talking about this that no one is more interested in finding out exactly what happened in benghazi than the president of united states. that is why he directed his secretary of state the day after the attack to take the actions she did to set of the accountability review board, to assess the security posturing -- security posture in the gauzy --
security posture in benghazi and elsewhere. it is why the president is so focused on ensuring that the perpetrators of the attacks that killed four americans are brought to justice. it is why the president has made clear and directed that action be taken to make sure the security of our diplomatic personnel. we have been clear all along that this was an ongoing investigation, that as more fact became available, we would make you aware of them as appropriate, and we have done that. i think the testimony of pat kennedy today reflects just that. >> is it the view of the president that there was an adequate security? >> there is no question that
when four americans are killed at a diplomatic security that something went wrong, and that is why we need to assess the security posture there, the security posture of other facilities around the world, especially in areas that are dangerous, especially libya in this post-revolution stage and in this period of transition in that country. that is absolutely the focus of the president's concern right now, that we make sure that our diplomatic personnel, who go abroad -- just like our military personnel, but sometimes americans are not as aware of it. a lot of diplomats go to very dangerous places and take enormous risks because they are serving their country and serving the interests of the american people abroad, because it is in our interests that america be represented in a country like libya, a country
that the united states and its people played a role in liberating from a tyrant. but he is very focused on the steps that need to be taken to bring about enhanced security where appropriate for diplomatic personnel around the world. >> [inaudible] the white house statement said that they discussed ways to take specific steps to bring the prospective killers to justice. can you tell us what specific steps are being discussed there? >> it is not a question of what it is not being done. it is a question of making sure that we are working cooperatively with the libyan government in the investigation to bring to justice those who are responsible, the very goal the president spoke about in the
aftermath of this terrible attack. john brennan was in libya to discuss a number of issues, not just this investigation, but it is certainly in our interests to work cooperatively with the libyans. thank you. >> the former head of the u.s. security team in libya told the committee that the diplomatic security there was drawn down not long before the attack on the u.s. consulate and that u.s. diplomats did not have enough protection. >> we lost four americans. we lost a u.s. ambassador and three other americans in the attack on benghazi.
there's no question that the security was not enough to prevent that tragedy from happening. beyond that, i would simply say that this is a matter under investigation, a matter under review at the director of the president and the secretary of state. the president is absolutely committed to following the facts wherever they may lead and to making sure that we take steps to ensure that our diplomatic personnel around the world in libya and elsewhere are adequately protected and that our facilities are secure. keeping in mind that it is inherely risky to represent the united states in some countries around the world that are very dangerous. we sometimes, except in situations like this, forget that we have thousands of americans abroad bravely representing us and our values
in places like libya and other regions of the world that could be dangerous in countries where being a representative of the american government can be risky, but it is the president's commitment and the secretary of state's commitment that we take the necessary steps to provide the security that is needed in these particular areas. >> are you ready to of knowledge that there were some mistakes made? >> i have said that there is no question that when four american personnel are killed in a diplomatic facility that the security was not adequate to prevent that from happening. it is not an acceptable outcome, obviously, that four americans were killed. from the day this happened, the president has been focused on making sure we do everything we can to bring the perpetrators to justice and making sure the diplomatic facilities around the world are protected and we take the steps necessary to find out
what happened and why. >> secretary -- senator schumer stirred up some controversy as today when he said that cutting taxes should not be part of negotiation of tax reform. i wonder if those comments in any way reflect the democratic stance. >> the president made clear that he supports tax reform broadly, but senator schumer is making an important point, that the wealthiest must pay their fair share. he is making the very clear point the president has made and others have made that it is fanciful thinking to imagine that you can give more tax cuts
to millionaires and billionaires, and that the pixie dust of trickle-down economics will somehow erase any damage to the deficit or hold harmless the middle class -- it is a mirage. it is not realistic. the broader issues of tax reform are something that very much interest the president of united states, but has always -- his approach is always that everyone has to pay their fair share, everyone has to pay their -- everyone has to get a fair shot. in the debate he is having with the election and has been having with republicans on capitol hill, if we take a balanced approach that includes increased revenues by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more, we can reduce our deficit significantly -- $4 trillion -- while making sure that the middle class does not have its taxes go up and making
sure that we invest in education and infrastructure and innovation. the alternative choice that has been presented is that we should lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires and in order to pay for that, we have to turn medicare into a voucher program. we have to get investments in education and innovation, research and development, border security, diplomatic security. that is not the right answer. that is not the right approach. we have tried it. it did not work. we should not go back. >> [inaudible] and the former regional security officer have both suggested there were efforts from the u.s. embassy in libya to have more security at the state department. state department officials would not let it happen. why? why would the state department not listen to these men on the
ground in libya who wanted more security? >> as i said, there is no question that the results of what happened in benghazi is not acceptable. four americans killed is not an acceptable situation, and that is what the president moved so quickly to ensure that an investigation was launched to bring the perpetrators to justice, the killers to justice, and a review was launched at the state department to look at our security posture at the benghazi facility and elsewhere. those matters are under investigation. they are also being discussed in a public hearing on capitol hill today by the individuals, both career and otherwise, who know the specifics of that. i can tell you he is very interested in bringing the perpetrators to justice and
ensuring that we find out what happened, why it happened, and taking steps to ensure that it never happens again. >> you have absolutely no idea why it happened? >> as we are hearing on capitol hill today, we have learned a great deal as the situation has progressed, and we have been very clear about what we have known in different stages of this process over the last several weeks and what we have yet to learn. and the fact that at each stage, the investigation continues and more facts may be developed that changed our understanding of what happened. state officials are being very clear about what we know now based on the several weeks of investigation that have taken place. they are also making clear that the investigation continues and that the accountability review board that is looking into the issues of diplomatic security is continuing its work. i am not prepared to preview the results of an investigation or a
review that are not yet complete or to second-guess what the experts in the field are going to conclude. >> president obama shortly after the attack told "60 minutes" regarding romney pose a response to the attacks -- the president said that mitt romney has a tendency to shoot first and came later -- shoot first and aim later. given so much -- given the fact is a much was made of this video that apparently had nothing to do with the attack on benghazi, didn't president obama shoot first and aim later? >> i would say the information we have now is not complete -- >> i am just going off to what the state department said. >> he was just reacting to the
-- the informational as they were reacting to the release of that video. i will leave it to those on capitol hill to talk about -- >> i am talking about in benghazi, not referring to the protests. >> at the time, the intelligence community's assessment was the attacks began following the release of that video in cairo. again, this is a moving picture. people who on the night of an attack or the day after claim they know all the facts without making clear that what we know is based on preliminary information are not being straight, and they are in some cases trying to politicize a situation that should not be politicized. i think that is what the president was getting at, and i think many other people felt the same way. this president's focus has been from day one on going after those who killed four americans,
on protecting the thousands of diplomatic personnel we have around the world and the facilities that they work in, and on making sure that a thorough investigation is conducted to find out what happened and that looks into our security posture both in benghazi and elsewhere. >> i would have to look at the transcript, but i remember president obama and secretary clinton talking about the video and -- in their remarks. maybe i am remembering that wrong, but it seems there was a lot of talk about the video in relation to the tragedy that unfolded. >> i do not have anything new for you about what the assessments are about how the attack came about, what the role of protests and demonstrations in other parts of the region were. i will point you to those who are testifying on capitol hill about this very matter as we speak.
>> democrats have talked about budgets being cut for embassy security. i am wondering if that is something that the white house believes was a problem as well, that there was something to do with money being held by whomever -- money being withheld by whomever. >> the situation in benghazi, more broadly in libya, and more broadly around the world is under review by the accountability review board, and those assessments should be made by those who are investigating. what is simply a matter of fact is that this president has been thoughtful and put forward funding that he believes necessary for diplomatic personnel and diplomatic security around the world, and others have sought to reduce the funding over these past several years because of an approach to our budget priorities that prioritizes tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
that is just a fact. i am not making an assessment based on this incident. there is no question that what happened in benghazi was a tragedy and that there was not secured enough to protect those four americans. >> when did the white house learned that there was no protest in benghazi? >> we have been very forthright along on the information that we have based on not opinion, not what folks have said or want to say on television, but on the assessments by those who make these assessments for the united states government. you know, we have discussed all along the fact that our assessments are preliminary and that they will change based on new information that has become available through the investigations that are under way. i know for several weeks now, we
have talked about the fact that more information has become available. i have been very candid about that from here and very clear about what we knew at the time, with the assessment from the intelligence community -- what the assessments from the intelligence community work. we have been making clear that initial assessments were revised as more information was gathered. we are focused on the facts as we get them. we are not focused on opinions about what happened, and we are certainly not focused on efforts to politicize this matter. >> i am still trying to understand when you learned there was no protest. >> the head of the nctc testified about what we knew at the time, which was after i and ambassador rice and others
spoke, which was the same assessment that we all had and we all received and we all work from that new information had led us to believe at that time there had not been a protest but that there were -- that elements had been involved in the attack -- extremist elements, and that it was a terrorist attack. i would point out, however, that the president himself said the day after or two days after -- referred to it as an act of terror. >> since there were so many unknowns at the beginning, why even speculate? why not just say, "we are waiting for the facts to come in?" >> based on what we knew at the time, based on the assessments -- not our opinion, not mine or anybody in this building's so opinion, but the assessments made by the intelligence community, as is made clear, we
provided the information that we had and made clear that it was preliminary, that there were active investigations, and that in situations especially like this, that new facts come to light that often change what we know about an event, and we were very transparent about that. we are being transparent about it today, both here and on capitol hill. >> does the president still have the faith of the intelligence community? >> absolutely. the intelligence professionals work very hard everyday assessing an extraordinary amount of information in an effort solely geared toward protecting the american people and american interests. >> can i ask about syria? not only the u.s. military force on the border on the jordanian side of the syrian border, secretary panetta described it
today as aiding the jordanians, but having american troops that close to what is going on in syria -- is that not an escalation? >> we have always said that contingency planning is the responsible thing to do, and we have been working closely with it -- for some time with our partners. jordan has been taking an important role. as we have seen with the syrian regime's violations last week of turkish sovereignty, our partners in the region are greatly affected by assad's brutal campaign, so we will continue to coordinate closely with our partners moving forward as we have in the past. >> u.s. boots on the ground right next to a war zone -- is this an escalation? >> it is not an escalation. it is working with a partner to deal with the impacts of assad's brutality.
>> as you know, many of the administration's critics would like to see a more active role by these troops. >> our position on providing military legal assistance has not changed. it is our position that what is needed in syria is not more weapons. what is needed is a political transition. you note critics who seem to support taking some sort of harder, more militaristic line, but they will not come forward and draw any real distinctions from what they are proposing compared to what the president is doing. if someone in congress or elsewhere wants to suggest that the united states should engage militarily directly in syria, they should say so. the president's position is we need to continue to provide and manage humanitarian assistance to the syrian people. we need to continue to provide
non-legal assistance to the opposition, elements of the opposition who aspire to a democratic, inclusive future for syria, and to work with our partners to isolate and punish assad for his brutality, and we are doing that. >> are you denying that the united states is helping to arrange a covert military assistance for the rebels? >> i will not talk about covert anything here, as you know, but our position is we will not provide legal assistance in syria -- a lethal -- we will not provide lethal assistance in syria. >> state department officials said they never thought that this attack was linked to a protest. is this revisionist history on the part of the state department, or are they seeing different intelligence than you are? >> we all get the same intelligence, and i would point
you again to what pat kennedy said in his public hearing today. that with regards to the specific question because it relates to what ambassador rice said on television on september 16, and that is that any administration official, including any career official, not just a political appointee, who was on television sunday september 16 would have said exactly what ambassador rice said because what she said was based on the assessments we had available to us. the entire government at that time. i would point you to what the dni has said about the assessments and how they have been clarified, evolves over time because new information has come to light. that is the nature of these things, and efforts to rush to a conclusion are not helpful. what is our responsibility is to provide the information we can based on what we know always with the caveat that the information we have is preliminary and more facts are coming to light. this is especially true in the
immediate aftermath of the attacks -- this was especially true in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. >> is the president concerned that in libya, abolish child country, not only were they not granted -- a volatile country, not only were they not granted the extra resources they asked for, but resources were taken away? >> as i said, the situation is under review at the president's direction. i can speak broadly to what the president's priorities are, which are, 1, bringing to justice those who killed four americans, two, taking every measure we can to ensure the security and safety of our diplomatic personnel and our facilities abroad, and investigating to the end what happened and why in benghazi so we can take steps to ensure it does not happen again.
>> the president wants preliminary answers for everything? >> he wants answers as soon as they are available. he wants investigators to have the space they need to follow the facts and reach conclusions based on the facts as opposed to speculation. >> can i get the president's thoughts on this affirmative action case before the supreme court today? >> as you know, i think, the justice department filed an amicus brief, so i would refer you to the justice for what is contained in that brief. i have not spoken with the president about this particular case. >> on the subject of affirmative action? >> i think you know the president's position on affirmative action. the supreme court has recognized in the past diversity in the classroom has learning benefits for students and schools. president obama has said that while he opposes quotas and thinks considering race can be
appropriate in certain circumstances, but again, i will not get into the specifics of this or any other individual case. for that, i will refer you to department of justice. >> congressional sources have said that on september 12, the day after the attack, undersecretary kennedy did a conference call with congressional staffers and others and said then this was not a protest. this was not a spontaneous reaction to the anti-muslim video, that this was a coordinated attack. my question is that was four days before ambassador rice went out on television and said "we believe that it is a reaction." did you and others mislead the public because you did not want to admit there was a terror attack? >> absolutely not. the president of united states referred to it as an act of terror immediately after it occurred, as you know. two, pat kennedy, the
undersecretary of state and for management is speaking on congress today, i will listen to what he says, rather than but congressional sources, whoever they may be, are telling you. >> you are saying on september 12, he used the phrase "act of terror." why were you quoted as saying several days after you do not know if it is terror? >> i never said that. the president made clear what we were talking about is -- >> september 12, the president believed it was terrorism? >> he said it was an act of terror. if you look at the definition of terrorism, and assault with arms on a diplomatic -- >> but days after that, you kept saying "we don't know." >> the issue was what led to the attack, and that has been an issue that we have provided assessment of based on the information that we have gleaned
through the intelligence community, preliminary information, and we have made clear all along, as ambassador rice has made clear, that these were preliminary assessments based on preliminary information. >> the president said it was terror. >> you are making a distinction between an act of terror and what led to the attack. >> let me ask you then, since it has been noted that tomorrow will be the one-month anniversary of the attack, why -- republicans have been hitting the president for talking about big bird on the campaign trail. he does not talk about this act of terror when he goes out. why will he not talk about it? >> i believe he has spoken on a
number of occasions about this, both in interviews and when he went to andrus -- andrews to receive the secretary of state clinton and members of the families to receive this caskets. he spoke very pointedly about the sacrifices they made, the risks they took on behalf of the american people and the risks we have abroad in places like libya and his commitment to make sure that those who are responsible be brought to justice, his absolute commitment that we do whatever we can to ensure that what happened in benghazi does not happen again. so i do not agree with your assessment that he has not been talking about this. it is also the case that there is a campaign going on, and he is out there just like his opponent talking about a variety of issues that are of interest to the american people, but he has spoken about the events in benghazi on a number of occasions, and you can be sure he will be speaking about them
in the future. >> he also mentioned that some version of al qaeda is on the road to defeat, and yet, al qaeda may have been involved in this terror attack -- we are thel not sure -- and secretary of state has noted that al >> what progress has been made, in decimating al-qaida central, that is a statement that even the president's strongest critics cannot contest. al-qaida is our number one vote. it is not russia. inkatha is a -- al-qaida is a dangerous enemy. we are committed every day in taking the fight to al-qaida. that is evident by the actions we take around the world against
al-qaida and its affiliates. it is such a dangerous enemy of the american people and our allies. >> you save the facts are not straight. why were we told repeatedly that this was a spontaneous event? >> when we provided the assessments that we have based on the information that the intelligence community have assessed, we make clear they were preliminary assessments. as facts became available, they would be made known. that has been the case from day one. we have been transparent about acknowledging when new information has come to light that has changed the assessment of the intelligence committee with provide these assessments to congress, to the fringes of garments -- bridges of government into the american
people. >> where is the threshold at which these assessments were made public? they were wrong. how is it determined when to use these assessments if they turn out to do wrong? >> this administration values transparency. when asked what happens, we gave our assessments based on the information we have the time. we made clear in giving them. but we knew of the time may change as more facts were found in the investigation that were under way. we have made that clear every step of the way. ambassador rice made that clear on sunday, september 16. it is our sole interest to find
out what exactly happened. why it happened. what steps should have been taken to prevent it. what steps may be taking going forward to ensure that it does not happen again. that is his focus. others are focused on other things. his focus is on the safety of diplomatic personnel who are serving this country overseas, finding those who killed four americans and bringing them toward justice and making sure that the sun happening in. >> six straight days of border hostilities in turkey. this is a civil war to some extent. has there been extern -- concern expressed and they know about activating any part of the treaty? what do you have to say? >> i have no information about turkey and nato.
we stand with our targets allied. we concerns -- it is on the serious -- syrian regime to respect turkey's sovereignty. a bashar al-assad has lost all legitimacy to leave the syrian people. his regime is struggling to contain control of syria. they have lost control of the country including cities where there was no fighting at all several months ago. the economy is under pressure. we have made clear as the number ellen did council has made clear that -- north atlantic council has made clear that the assault on turkey's sovereignty is unacceptable. we stand by our turkey's allies. >> the iraq commissioner said he is stepping down november 9.
was that -- will the present bill that position quickly? >> i have no personnel announcements to make today. none today. >> tim from bloomberg news. at the hearing today about been , the request from libya for more security was rejected by the state department. was the white house involved with the discussions or the determinations? >> i am not going to get into specifics under review by the accountability review board. i would point you to testimony being delivered by officials close to the facts about our diplomatic security posture as we speak on capitol hill in the very hearings that you referenced. the present's position has been
that we need to ensure the safety and security of our diplomatic facilities and our diplomatic personnel. it is unquestionable that our civilian personnel overseas in dangerous places take risks on behalf of you and me every day. chris stevens and the other three americans are heroes. chris stevens went into benghazi when there was still a civil war going on when gaddafi was waging war with his own people. his harrison and barry must been -- his heroism and bravery must be noted. it is part of the risks that come with these kinds of postings. it is part of what makes this country great that there are individuals out there willing to do those jobs because they believe that america needs to engage in the world, that our
values are still a beacon for the world. as for the specifics about the security posture at benahazi and elsewhere, i would have to point you to state department officials in the accountability review board. >> what was the president's reaction to the shooting of the 14-year-old girl in palestine? has the administration or anyone from the u.s. government stepped in to attack the present found the news reprehensible and disgusting and tragic. we strongly condemned the shooting. directing violence at children is barbaric. to the cowardly. our hearts go out to her and others wounded as well as their families. the u.s. has offered necessary assistance to her as part of this offer the u.s. military has provide -- has agreed to
provide resources if it is necessary. >> this morning we heard president obama on a morning show. he said of his debate the foreman's last week he was too polite and there would be more activity at this debate. what does he mean by activity? >> the president looks forward to the opportunity to go before the american people and present his ideas for how to continue to move the country forward. he believes that we need to continue to invest in education and innovation and research and development and our roads and bridges and schools. he believes we have to make sure the middle class is not in a
situation where its taxes are going up so that we have to pay for a tax cut for millionaires and billing -- billionaires'. you can expect that he will talk about that distinction between his vision for moving court and what he believes is a vision to move back to the policies that we tried in did not work. we have heard about how massive tax cuts that benefit the wealthy will mopery economy forward and help everybody. we were all here from 2001 until 2008. we know what happened when those policies were implemented. a record surplus was turned into a record deficit. the middle class saw its income stagnate or decline. we put two words on a credit
card. we put tax cuts on a credit cut. where we did not pay for them. the result was the worst economic crisis that any of us have ever known in our lifetimes. >> when the president was asked about his performance, tom joyner asked about his performance. he said he was too polite and there would be more activity. does that mean he will engage or report back? will he come back with -- many think he had a chance to -- he did nothing but clinches teeth. >> the president looks will work to next tuesday. he sees a as an opportunity to make clear what we need to do to move the country forward.
these are chances for the american people to see a very clear contrast between an agenda and a vision that moves the country forward and one that embraces policies that are not theoretical but our empirical. we know what happens when we go down that road. we saw it. the president looks forward to making clear the difference and choice. he believes that facts matter. he believes that the american people want to hear from their leaders what it is they would do if they were given the opportunity to serve. in the oval office. he has been consistent from the day he started running from the presence the critic for the presidency of to this moment about who he is fighting for,
his policies. he will continue to be that way. >> prior to the debate, they cut back on the present's debate press. i remember doing one debate when he was in a conversation with john mccain. he said he could walk and chew gum at the same time. is he stepping up to the debate prep again? is he putting more into it? >> i will not get into the president's campaign schedule or his debate prep. he looks forward to the opportunity. he believes the stakes are high. it is about -- it is not about him or his opponent or one party or the other. it is about what would you do when you get into office. will you ensure middle-class americans do not have their taxes go up?
will you push a plan that turn medicare into a voucher? will you roll back regulations on wall street that were put in place to prevent the financial crisis we had that sent us into the worst recession of our lives times? those are issues that matters. he looks for it to discussing those issues on tuesday. >> several surveys have found that a majority of small businesses say they are not hiring because of the burden from federal regulations. what feedback has the president receives from small-business owners? this he have concerns that any of his federal regulations are stifling economic growth among small businesses to attack this president is committed to helping small business as evidenced by the fact that he has signed into law 18 small
business tax cuts. he understands the small businesses are the engine of economic growth in this country. he believes we need to fight for those businesses rather than getting tax breaks to companies for moving jobs overseas. rather than subsidizing the oil and gas companies to the tune of $4 billion per year when those same companies are making record profits. he is looking forward to having this debate on this issue. it is a debate that has continued for weeks and months. the president is out there making the case that his policies are designed to fight for middle-class americans.
that includes small business owners. the vast majority of home -- whom are not affected by the policy prescriptions when you hear critics say we need to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires because those tax cuts in addition to helping warren buffett and others will help small businesses. they do not tell you that their definition of small business includes hedge fund managers. go to most main streets in america and ask them if a billionaire hedge fund manager qualifies as a small-business. the answer would be -- well, not so much. the president has been clear about who he is fighting for and the choices we have to make in the priorities reflected in his budget proposals. it will continue to be so. >> when the president says he was too polite in the debate, does that mean at the next one
it will be no more mr. nice guy? he will be impolite. he will be blunt. he will come up with his arms swinging. [talking over each other] what does it mean? >> the president will make a case for the kind of america where we really economy from the middle out. for the kind of america where consumers are protected from insurance companies who want to deny them benefits when they need them or credit card companies that build their applications forms with all sorts of unintelligible detail
that ends up creating hardship for the consumers they bring in. that is why he put in place the health care reform. that is why he has called on congress to pass a middle-class tax cuts. they go to 98% of the american people. republicans have said no because the one taxes to go up on money sent -- 90% of the american people and less millionaires and billionaires get tax cuts too. that is bad policy. it does not reflect the values this president believes are a part of the debate we are having today. the president will make a strong case. on tuesday and going forward. thank you. >> more campaign debate
conference -- coverage coming up tonight from senator scott brown and his challenger elisabeth warren. up until then, a conversation about the 2012 presidential race from this morning's "washington journal."
we're joined now by david corn, of course mother jones and out with a new ebook that 47% video of the word spoken by governor mitt romney at a fundraiser. the governor was asked about it yesterday when he was on cnn. i want to show a little bit of that and get your reaction what he's saying now about this video. [video clip] what i'm saying, words came out what's not what i meant. what i mean people understand that if i'm president, i'll be president for 100% of the people.
my whole campaign is about helping the middle class have rising income and more jobs and helping get people out of poverty into the middle class. that's what this campaign is about. the wealthy are doing fine right thousand. they'll do fine most likely regardless of who's elected president. it's the middle class that's having a hard time under president obama. my campaign is about 100% of the american people. so describes what was stated in the paper is not referring to what kind of president i'd be or who i will be fighting for and instead talking about politics. it didn't come out the way i manipulate it. host: your reaction. guest: the great thing about the 47% story is nobody wants to view it through my filter my analysis, yours or even mitt romney's. you can watch the video.
when i watch it and i watched it the first time, my jaw dropped. i was stunned at what i interpreted to be a tremendous amount of disdained being expressed by a man who wanted to be president for half the country he literally said 47% of the country will not take personal responsibility for their lives. he's tried to spin it since then say he was talking about ideology and about policy issues or about politics. i can't get people who don't pay income taxes to vote for me out of the basis of low income taxes. all of those statements after the fact, have some merit in and of themselves. but they don't reflect of what he actually said at that private fundraiser. he said these people believe they are entitled to food and healthcare and they want to live off
others. the most damning line, they won't take personal responsibility for their lives. if you watched the tape, i saw a -- man speaking if full sentences. it was spoken with a lot more passion and conviction that you often don't see in mitt romney and he was addressing the question. the question was basically, how can you convince people to get off the dome and take responsibili ty for their lives in the two months you have in the general election? he answered the question quite completely. but again, my original point, you don't have to take my word for that. host: when the vote was first released by mother jones, the entire video was not released. why wasn't the entire thing released? guest: that entire answer was released. we did
what any journalist does. when you go cover a presidential speech or candidate speech, "new york times" doesn't put the whole speech on the front page and cnn and msnbc and fox don't broadcast the whole speech. you find things you think are newsworthy. you plead guilty finding we felt was newsworthy in the video and putting that out first. there was a bunch of clip and there were five clip and other things reported in my original story that i thought was newsworthy. and second day we focused on foreign policy things. we broke the story 4:00 on a monday afternoon with 47% remarks and other remarks. if you just elect me, the economy will get better just because i'm elected. things we felt were interesting. tuesday morning, we put out his statement about middle east conflict which he said things in private. they
contradict what he said publicly about support for two state solution. basical ly, tuesday afternoon, we put out everything and reported another journalist they thought was newsworthy. we could have held on it for days and put out stories. we decided not to. we decided it was such interest to people and we let other people decide what they think is important. it was our scoop and we managed it that way. it was certainly in keeping with the conventional traditions of journalism. host: david corn, washington bureau chief of the mother jones. you're out with a new ebook about this. 47% uncovering the romney video. how do people read this? guest: first they have to get it. it's an ebook. host: where do they go? guest: you can go to amazon if you're kindle readers. you can
go to ibook. my kids were pleased, it was right next to j.k. rawlings new book. for anybody that read with a tablet or phone or kindle or device like that, they know where to go and available everywhere. its 99 cents. it's not a full length book. it's a short book and a very long section of a book. it's part of what publishers trying to do experimentin g with new forms of books and new forms of dissemination. i was happy to see it shoot up to the top of number one in the elections category and amazon yesterday. it's basically a narrative about how i came to find the video and put into context the campaign and why i think it resonated and how it reinforced a narrative that the obama campaign spent months negotiating and how i think it actually forced romney's pivot to the middle.
i don't know if he's ever going to do it but perhaps sooner than he intended to. host: did you find the video? did you uncover or was it given to you? guest: kind of all three. what happened was that it's a great lesson for journalism students. earlier in the summer i had series of stories about romney's investment in bain capital including a campaign called global tech. it was a chinese company with manufacturin g. when there was a debate about outsourcing and job creation, it a piece of evidence in that debate because romney one of his bain affiliates invested tens of millions of dollars in this outsourcing betting back in the late 1990s. in the course of doing that and doing a series of other stories, i came into contact named james carter. he is grandson of jimmy carter. he's a freelance research guy and he found some s. e. c. documents about bain that were interesting. he sent them to me.
i get tips and leads like this all the time. the first thing you do, you go and look at the document itself. if it's good it's good and if it's not it's not. sort of batting back and forth with ideas. in the middle of all that, came across a video bumping around the internet for a couple months of romney seemingly speaking to a group of people about a trip to china to buy a factory that he thought, i agreed probably related to this company i written about global tech. he said, maybe there's more on the tape that describes more completely what he was doing and what he was speaking to achieve with these investments. i say let's try to find the person who put up the tape who done in anonymously. he said you want me to try to do that for you. i said yes, please. couple days, he found the person anonymously. he never got the true identity of this person. he said david corn done these series of articles and the person was familiar already with those articles. the person agreed and james was go between to putus together. i did what journalist do in these situations develop a relationship of trust and comfort. obviously he doesn't want to put it out and wanted to remain anonymous. ultimately, persuaded the person to share with me the video and we talked about how to use it. i got to see it and realized how big it might be. it was a combination of things. really for journalism students out there, the interesting thing it really came about because these other stories that gotten some attention but weren't gang busters. because he cared about the china thing more than anything else, had seen those stories and that was one reason why this person was willing to work with me. host: is there more to come from you andmother jones? guest: we're always working on
things. i have a different type of video we maybe putting up tomorrow. host: can you tell us more? guest: i can't tell you more fiscal it'sfact checked. host: will it rock the 2012 election? guest: it won't be as beg. we've gotten a leads and tips. if anybody have anything out, please feel free to send them to me at motherjones. com. we're still looking. we've gotten lot of leads and some are pretty outrageous and we haven't been able to make headway at all and just phony material. host: you say in your title that thisromney video that rocked the 2012 election, did itwhen he sigh that the poll -- see when we see pollstighten? guest: there's no doubt that mitt romneytook a tremendous hit from the video and as you cansee, as you showed, he still has to talk about it. we live in an era where the news cycles, can be measured almost nano second. what happened tuesday by the sunday shows, really old. things don't sort of stick around that long. what happened at the first debate with romney and the president will be a clip somewhat what happens thursday and what happens next tuesday when they meet again. a week or two of a shelf life for any story think is extraordinary. the fact that we're so time limit for 47% remarks, shows the impact it's had. i also think the most appreciate thing -- precious thing for any presidential campaign, it's not necessarily money, it's time. mitt romney had to spend two weeks dealing with this issue. while he had a very good debate showing and that seems to have an impact in the polls initially here, may be he will be further ahead now had he actually spent those two weeks doing what he intended to do rather than playing defense. i do know that focus groups, both romney campaign ran and the
obama campaign ran showed these remarks really alienated independent voters and even weak republicans. which indicates to me that this comes up again in the debate and advertising, it will remind people. they forgot about it or responding to the debate. host: let's go to phone calls. barb, democratic caller you're on the air. caller: i would like to say that romneyexpressed his real feeling about the 47%. it cannot be ignored. also understand that he signed grover norquist pledge. if he did that, he cannot represent 100% of the population because if you say that you're going to ignore the situation that the country is in, you cannot say that you unequivocally ignore taxes and to get income to support the country. with that, he could not represent me and the middle class and or poor people. host: we'll leave it there. john in north carolina, tweets in this though. the 53% are not in the least offended by the comment which was by and large true. guest: everyone has their right to theiropinion here. the poll showed that actually, particularly independents, really took exception to the remark. for this remark included people who are working hard, who have to use food stamps as a stopgap measure. people on medicare and pell grant. lot of them vote republicans. it wasn't just talking about -- when you talk about these people, you're not just talking about moochers and loafers.
i had a whom say i'm making $12,000 a year and i'm on food stamps and i'm telling governor romney, i don't feel like i'm entitled but i need it.
in talking about taxes too as the caller mentioned, we heard mitt romney say with wolf blitzer is that the wealthy are doing fine and i don't care about the wealthy.
the question is why do you want to lower their tax rate 20%? he's saying that's not his plan? host going back and forth and obama campaign is trying to making a campaign issue out of it. if the wealthy is doing fine do who bowles-simpson says. he keeps talking of bowles- simpson every chance he has, which had does not slash government spending immediately. and it raise taxes on the wealthy a little bit to close that gap. the ryan budget would have, which he endorsed, mitt romney endorsed and put ryan on the
ticket, would have tremendously slashing effect in government spending and social programs. it cuts taxes further. beyond the bush tax cuts for the wealthy. i think there's still a lot of back and forth flip-flopping whatever you want to call it strategic ambiguity what mitt romney is saying. host: let's go to stamford, connecticut,bob you're up next. caller: good morning. i'm an informed voter and i spent 30 plus years in the consulting industry and i don't know how to create jobs and people would have you believe is possible. there's a number of factors that led to the current condition and i don't hear anybody talking about what's going to be done to alleviate those factors. going to give you a couple examples.
one is the banks. the availability of money. two, is the confidence in wall street. so many got burned, very few people private investors, want to take chance on investing money. three oil, the war in iraq, restricted the flow out of one of the major producers when congress petitioned for that oil around the world which was increasing at a dramatic rate. finally, new industries, previously in all of the recoveries there were always some industry that was in the vanguard. either telephone, high-tech resolution. we had the auto industry. it was always some industry there that was picking up the slack for the rest of the failing economy. i don't hear anybody talking about what they will do to restore confidence in wall street by holding certain people accountable. what they will do to ensure money is available in investment industry, what they've going to do to alleviate the condition in the oil. i don't hear anybody talking
about these things. guest: i think those are all great issuethat's you raise. we can spend an hour just going through some of those. i think, if you look at some of the things, the president has said and maybe he hasn't reached you yet, some of these fit into his message. for instance, he says, he passed wall street reform. mitt romney sort of says, he will repeal it. one reason you pass reform is to create a set of rules to encourage confidence again particularly amongst investors who indeed don't want to get burned and they don't want to become part of the shenanigans that came up in the 1990s under the bush-cheney years. the way to do that is to tighten the rules of the road.
elizabeth warren who's running for senate against scott brown in massachusetts, talks very convincingly about this. if you have better rules at wall street, you would have more investment and more capital and it will help the economy that way. in terms of industries of the future, there are two mitt romney and barack obama seem to have two competing view. mitt romney view is, let the markets work it out and they'll figure out whatever comes next. barack obama talks repeatedly about the need to have investments, government investments that spur innovation. if you look at something like the internet, if you look at the transcontinental railroad, started by lincoln during the civil war is a way to create a infrastructure that would lead to greater commerce and greater prosperity for private enterprise. barack obama has a view that listen, with government funds, we get there jointly and you try to see certain areas.
which is what happens happening in china and europe in terms of green jobs and solar jobs, the government is investing tremendously in this stuff and they are pulling ahead of us. they may not money winners but they are obviously energy winners of the future. the president is trying to address some of your concerns and governor romney is talking about them in a different way but often gets lost in the shuffle. host: on our facebook page, we listedquestions and comments for you last night. there's over 140 comments on there. here's one from cathy. mr. corn between part one and part two of the full 47%. were the tapes selectively edited?
guest: , no, i talked about this and iexplained this in the ebook. what happened was the file came to us in two parts. part one and part two. the source said that well, recording the fundraiser, the device the source was using timed out. the source doesn't exactly know why. maybe it just timed out and as soon as the source noticed that, the device was turned back on and the source estimates one to two minute or maybe even less was not captured. we put it out and we put the whole tape filed exactly as we received it. no editing and none of that. to me it's kind of funny, there have been some conservatives made the claim there's two important missing minutes. as if that would have any bearing on the remarks -- we have 7 minutes of remarks here. in those minutes, did he say i'm just kidding about the other stuff? he never came out and said more importantly, you've heard mitt
romney try to explain this about ten times now. he's never said those remarks are taken out of context. i then said this when i meant that. we put out very long sound bites. longer than you get on most network news show. to show as much of a context we can show. i think this is a red hairing that even the romney campaign hasn't thrown on the table. host: what can you tell us about thesource of this video? guest: really not much. all i've been able to say that the person who did not go to the fundraiser as part of a political hit job.
they weren't realizing they will be in a room with a presidential candidate but something interesting might happen or might be captured but didn't go with the intent of an opposition researcher would. host: were they invited to thefundraiser? cant: that's really all i say aboutthis person who still wants to remain anonymous. the back and forth that he with the person, i described in the book and afterwards on my twitter feed, i'll put up links at the david corn d. c. on twitter so people can look for themselves. believe me, i really wish i could say more about this person. a lot of people want to know obviously who it is. many have thanked the person and others curse him. host: we'll go to mike orange park,florida, who's a republican.
caller: thank you for taking my call. first of all david this must be quite exciting for you. this is probably the first tv show i've seen other than msnbc. in regards to your remark about the chopped up tape, we pretty much know that your story doesn't wash because you can look at the entire tape that you put up there with a chopped out part that you left out of it. guest: sir, you just accused me of lying. i did not chop anything out of the tape. if you're going to accuse me of doing that, there's really no need to further conversation. caller: okay, let me restate my positionthen. whoever provided you the tape if they say it timed out and they jostled it and restarted it, then please explain to the audience when i'm done, because i got a couple other comments, when i'm done, why that device stays exactly in the same place for the entire tape?
now you can answer that later. host: let's --guest: i told you what the source says. actually i spent a lot of time talking to the source. and i believe the source and if it timed out, you just pushed a button on the device. it starts up again. again, to me my question to you is, if there's missing moments there, so what. what do you think mitt romney said? do you think he said i was kidding about that? caller: let me respond to what i think. i think what he was saying, which is what most americans believe is that there are a lot of people and i see them everyday, i see them in the grocery store. i engage with them everyday that
are receiving some kind of government assistance. those people don't need to have that government assistance. we drive a 1992 camry and i see them drive out in a 2012 suv as they leave a parking lot. those people are taking away from the people that really need it. i do have one other question for you and for the show host. will c-span give time to the recent release of the 2007 tape or barack obama called the u.s. government races in regards to how the treatment of the people of katrina? that is important. we did when fox news talk about that. we showed the video. we talked about it and read the
newspaper article. we did address that. guest: mike thinks things are right when they are not. mitt romney said what he said. he does not claim that he said anything like her. he said there are people -- the 47%. they will not take personal responsibility for their own lives. i do not know how people can spend that to be anything else other than what it is. >> i am humbled. i love your magazine. when i saw the clip you put out, my jaw dropped. i thought he was going to be out of the race right now.
to go on to the middle class and jobs, romney says he supports the middle class and wants to grow jobs. he also says the rich will use their money to make more jobs. i would say that his actions should speak louder than his words. his words came on the backs of the workers of the united states. fire the workers of the companies. move to other jobs out of the country. while he is moving these jobs out of the country and building up his fortune, he may as well move his money offshore so he does not have to pay taxes. i do not know how someone with that kind of record can say that he is going to be creating jobs or that anyone in the upper
class -- we do not want to tax them because they create the jobs. i do not know how many jobs he created. he ended a lot of jobs. host: we will leave it there. guest: you made some of the case against ms. romney that at bain he was interested not in creating jobs but in maximizing well for his investors. that meant he would buy companies and sometimes the company's improved. sometimes they did not. bain usually found a way to make money. they would get out. i put up a video after the 47% video in which he described bain and said their idea was to harvest companies. that is what had french guys do. that is their right -- hedge fund guys do. that is their right.
newt gingrich called it a boulter capitalism. it is not in making the company as a member of the community that creates jobs and is a source of wealth of the people who work there. people are asking how they can benefit because the company is undervalued or has potential that is not realized. how can we make money and take off and not care? it is a different view. the president had a good response to that that in june and july when they were arguing about the bain days. he said if you are president, your job has to be bigger than maximizing profits for a class of investors. mitt romney is having a difficult time applying his past experience to this larger job of leading a nation and growing an economy in the public interest rather than creating wealth and the private interest.
>> we are talking to david korn. he has a new book about the 47% video. it rocked the 2012 election. our producer reminded me that he wants equal time for video, we are having tucker carlson on next week. he was the one that talked about the 2007 video of president obama that then sean hannity had on his show. >> there was a difference in that that video had been transferred out to the public record. it was not a surprise. that was a public events where the president knew there were cameras. no one has seen the mitt romney video or talk to a private fundraiser like that. this ideal of equivalence i have two objectives which it objects to.
host: independent color. guest: i have so much to talk to about. this person that made the video and refuses to give his identity is a coward. he throws a rock and hides his hand. you are supporting him. it fits your agenda. the reason this video did not heard from is because it is true. i am from a family of eight children. i have a brother who has never worked a day in his life. the government has supported him has built him a house has paid all of his medical bills. he had five children, all five are on the government. he figures his job as a parent is done when his children can get on welfare. the reason is the video did not hurt to romney is because it is true. there are people who are gaining
the system. guest: on the welfare reform that bill clinton and newt gingrich and other still tout, you do not necessarily have to be on welfare as a child and not work. i do not understand your brother's situation. putting that aside, mitt romney was free to say there are people who are gaming the system. he did not say that. he said that anyone who is on entitlements, a pell grant, trying to go to college to better themselves, anyone who uses of food stamps because they are in between jobs, people who are on medicare, medicaid. i do not know if you use any of those. they are all part of the mooching society.
people are free to say we should get rid of the social safety net and not have these programs. we can have that debate in this country. that is a fine debate to have. mitt romney said -- lunch all of these people together. your brother who is irresponsible with someone who is on veterans' assistance. that is where a lot of people took offense. host: the caller implied you have an agenda. from twitter -- you are a shell from -- you are a leftist shill for the democratic party. guest: i did work for a "mother jones." it is a progressive magazine. he will have tucker carlson. go to
we spent a lot of our times doing investigative reporting with a tremendous amount of fact checking. we have a loyalty to accuracy. people can call me names if it makes them feel better. the issue is what the facts we bring to bear and whether it is true or not. you have a hard time taking issue with a videotape of a candidate saying something. host: you said earlier a nother video that will be posted on your web site tomorrow. can you tell us what time? >> there are a key fact checking issues. i hope it will be up tomorrow. it involves mitt romney. that is all i should say in case it is not up tomorrow. it is not from a private
fundraiser. we put every second we have. there is nothing from that fund raiser that is not in the public record. host: john, democratic caller. caller: hello, one of the things that i wanted to say was i think that during the debate it was misinterpreted by a lot of people obama's reaction. he said the $5 trillion deficit -- tax cuts to romney on purpose. he waited for him to list down all of his misguided or changes he was going to make. after it was over, and he thought it was going to be out in the open that he ended up making a bunch of commercials about big bird because it was the only true that came out of
mitt romney's mouth. i like to be able to say in answer to that after you answer me. guest: the people who worked on the obama campaign were not happy by the present's performance. it was not that this was a strategic act on his part that he would act dissonant or look down a lot, not to challenge romney directly or indirectly, sufficiently on some of these big issues. acting in a lackluster fashion. they were on a conference call before the day was over trying to figure out how they make the best of the situation. it may be that the president will indeed do that. it is always difficult to extrapolate from any given
point. that moment was not a good night for the president. it was a good night for romney. he came across with force and bigger. focus groups show that the impact was in his favor but not as much as the pundits on the cable tv's and news shows and newspapers said it was. all that said -- the first debate will not be as portend as the second, which will not be as a important as the third. there will be plenty of time for the president to come up with a different approach. there is plenty of time for romney to revert back to the not great candidate he was before the night of the debate. host: republican from colorado. guest: thank you for taking my call. we appreciate -- could not
interrupt me? i know you want to answer everything i say. it takes away from my time. you can after -- answer afterward if you would please. we are continuing to beat a dead horse. we are like dorothy out in the united states. the curtain has been pulled back on the debate. everyone knows the president that we have now. if he cannot go toe to toe with romney and mr. lehrer, how will he go toe to toe with putin,. he will back out. the source sick of hearing about this 47%, which mitt has already addressed. he said he was in not a great of a space. we do not make our point about -- is so nervous. you can say things that have the truth and the base of them.
most of americans think what he said in the tape there is a truth to it. we need to clean up welfare and things like that. bohol all of us would agree to that. he may have not said it the best way. guest: you are wrong if you look at the polls. most americans and not approve of those remarks. that is impulse. that is a fact. obviously, you approve and republicans are trying to find a way to make the same not a big deal. most americans disapprove of those remarks. as far as the present's performance of the debate, people can judge anyway he wants-- they want. they think he is tough enough to destroy the al-qaida leadership but not strong enough to take on mitt romney. that is their prerogative.
i want to say something that i did not say if he calls back. he called the source a coward for not coming forward. there are a lot of whistle- blowers to give us information of what goes on behind the scenes. to know what our corporate executives are doing that contradict what they tell us they are doing or what they say in public. usually it is an act of courage to do that. people often do that at risks to themselves. i cannot describe what happened in this instance. in my book, i call this a gutsy move on the part of the source. guest: "47% percent."
>> next, senator scott brown and elizabeth warren face each other in the massachusetts debate. the debate is courtesy of tv in springfield, live coverage in the springfield mall now on c- span. >> good evening. welcome to symphony hall for a debate between scott brown and elizabeth warren. i am honored to be the moderator tonight. we have rules this evening. our audience of more than 2600 guests have agreed to be silent. no eruptions or applause.
each candidate has a minute and 30 seconds to answer each question, and 30 seconds for rebuttal. later, each candidate gets one minute for a closing statement. a coin toss has determined the speaker order. we have received more than 200. every question is based on an idea from the public. elizabeth warren won the first coin toss. just last week, we saw the national unemployment numbers fall between the to below 8%. millions of americans are still looking for jobs. things are especially difficult for minority cities.
what will it take and what will you do if elected to support job growth? >> thank you very much. thank you for everyone for being so hospital -- hospitable. we have nearly 200,000 people unemployed in massachusetts. there are higher unemployment rates here in springfield. it is a serious problem. i look at this as a short-term and long-term problem. short-term, they should put people back to work. i was surprised when senator brown of voted against a three in a row that would have supported 22,000 jobs here in the commonwealth of massachusetts, would have prevented layouts, and police officers, it would have put construction workers back to work. why? it would have been an increase in taxes, not for most people, but for those who make a million
dollars or more. making the investments in education, making the investments in research, and we make those investments together and build a future. that is what it will take over the long run to build a stronger future here in western massachusetts, all across the commonwealth, and all across the country. >> thank you. before i start, i want to thank the mayor for your endorsement and support. thank you both for coming. this is actually about jobs and economy. the whole race is about that. we held one of our first jobs
fares here because we want to connect people with jobs. when you put a title on a bill in washington that says jobs bill, you have to read the bill. those bills in particular were rejected in a bipartisan manner, and that means democrats and republicans recognize that by taking for under $50 billion in taxes out of the private sector and giving it to washington to increase government spending, that is not the answer. the best answer is to come and put the money in the communities. i went down there today and he did not say, thank you for coming. please take this money and bring it back to washington. he said, go back to washington and tell them they need a reality check. we are tired of the overspending and the taxing and taking more money out of the economy. there are real challenges here. i used to live here. i worked and i lived over there.
i understand. many businesses are hurting right now. regulatory tax uncertainty is the biggest challenge they have. >> tomorrow will be the one-year anniversary of senator brown's first vote against 22,000 jobs here in massachusetts. i hope everybody who knows someone who is unemployed, every business who would like to see those paychecks to spend in their shops, will remember that. that is how we jump-start the economy. we get work that needs to be drop -- it needs to be done, and we put people back to work. the bill would have cost millionaires, those making one the dollar -- $1 million or more, pay more. he stood with the millionaires and not those out of work. >> you have 35 seconds. >> it is the anniversary of the protecting people's pocketbooks and wallets.
i'm making sure $450 billion did not go out of the private sector in into washington so they could spend it. you need to create the regulatory tax certainty. when i am fighting for military jobs and trying to create the ability for them to stay in business, i am very proud my third vote was a bipartisan jobs vote. -- bill. we need to do it better. >> next question goes to mr. brown. depending on what happens on election day, it is entirely possible the numbers will be set up in such a way in january that both houses are set up by the republican party. it seems to me in the repeal of obamacare. it is further escalating costs and hospitals and physicians.
it is a problem of fraud, but hard to catch and investigate. what do we do about the continuing health-care cost problem. would you support a pro -- a replacement of fee-for-service to help try to reduce the rising costs? >> health care is something that affects every person in every business in massachusetts. i was proud to work on our health care bill that actually and shores -- insurers 98% of our people. we did it without raising taxes and we did it without the one- size-fits-all. the federal bill, which my opponent supports and i do not, raises taxes.
the folks that have the so- called cadillac tax plans, the teachers, they will be taxed tens of thousands of dollars. i believe everybody should have health care. that is why i supported what we did here in massachusetts. i think other states should be incentivized. to think the federal government will tell massachusetts where we have the best doctors in the world, that is unacceptable. the codes changed regularly. there really is no certainty and stability. it is something we need to continue to work on. >> 90 seconds. >> you are right about the control of the senate. scott brown has made it clear his first job will be to repeal
the affordable care act. i do not think that is good for us. he raises the same old argument that there will be more than $700 billion taken out of medicare. that is the same playbook mitt romney used a week ago tonight. it was wrong then and it is wrong tonight. [applause] it is not money being taken out of medicare. aarp has made this clear. the plan is to take waste fraud out and strengthen medicare. keep in mind what senator brown is in favor of, is getting rid of a bill that helps seniors' right now pay for prescription drugs, closes the so called on a whole. 11,000 seniors here in massachusetts are getting help, paying for their prescription medications. there is a lot that the affordable care act does, and it
brings down health care costs. also, investments at a lot of research. i am proud to be from massachusetts where most of the research is being done. this will be a big driver for the economy here in massachusetts and ultimately for saving health-care around the country. >> you have 30 seconds. >> thank you. the bottom line is any of the seniors that are listening in the crowd, you need to pay attention. it is two quarters of a trillion dollars that my opponent is supporting and i do not. to think you can cut that amount money and not have it affect your care and coverage is wrong. to think the federal government will dumb down what we did here in massachusetts, that is not something i can support. we have an opportunity in massachusetts. this is a jobs-crushing bill.
you have 18 new taxes coming in. i cannot support it. >> 7 extra seconds. >> senator brown will double down on a number that simply is not true. aarp has made it clear that the changes the affordable care act as for medicare strengthens medicare and does not cut benefits by even one penny. senator brown wants to talk about taxes. keep in mind there is only $1 trillion in tax cuts in the affordable care act. it comes to people who are predicting -- purchasing health insurance and the small businesses that are providing health insurance. it is good for us. >> college debt for the students and families. we know it tops $1 trillion. higher education is the largest
industry in massachusetts. the number means a lot to us. what would you do and what more can and should washington do if anything to address the soaring cost of college debt students face. >> i went to public schools and a commuter college. i ended up as a professor. i got to do that because of the opportunities afforded me by a good education that america invested in. now we live in a world where there is far too little investment, and is typically in higher education. there are four great community colleges in this area. we need to be making the investments in the community colleges. for a couple of reasons. partly because it is a good, affordable way for kids to get an education. partly because it helps us build a future. persistent technology here in western massachusetts, this is a real opportunity for the future. only if there is a way -- a well-educated work force. that starts and home school, on
into community colleges, and on into universities. i want to say this is about priorities. that is how i see it. there will not be a single, magic bullet. what the priorities. students will have to pick up more of the costs of student loans. trice -- twice, senator brown voted to let students rates double. why? it would have forced to pay for it closing a loophole -- a loophole used by millionaires. it is called the new gingrich loophole. what are your priorities? protecting loopholes for millionaires or college education? >> great question. the cost of education is out of sight. we need to have an educated student population. my youngest daughter graduated. i understand. one of the largest driving
forces behind the high cost of education is administrative costs. professor war makes about $350 thousand to teach a course. she got a zero interest loan and gets perks. it is interesting. kids are forced to go out and borrow money at a high interest rate. then harvard goes and gets a zero interest world -- loan to the professors. that is one of the driving forces behind the high costs of education. that, energy, health care. if you are paying for health care for students, it has gone up as a result of obamacare to about $15 -- $5,000. -- $1,500. we have done a lot with providing benefits for our students. i -- we need to continue to do
that. there she goes again with regard to talking about student interest rates. i voted against it because i did not want to see small business owners pay $60 billion to pay for low interest rates. we stopped it and we worked and rolled up our sleeves and did it without taxing people and using any additional federal funds. >> i went to a commuter college. i paid $50 a semester for tuition. i am proud to have made it to where i have made it in my profession. let's be clear. i paid $50 a semester because america was investing in public colleges and universities at the time. that is what we need to do. [applause] the question about voting is, what side are you on? i want to go with our kids. >> we actually passed that bill to keep student interest rates low. we did it by working together in
a truly bipartisan way to get it done. we did not tax -- she says millionaires and billionaires. no, it is the ordinary businesses that would have had to pay that $6 billion to keep student interest rates low. we did it together. we found the money. it is my leadership working with both sides to get that done. >> i will remind the audience, it only takes a line -- time away from your candid it's when you apply. please do not. let's stay with education. communities are stretching and struggling to pay for local schools. memory costs are based on a federal mandates and requirements. what should the role of the federal government be in local education? >> i work very hard to provide
the tools and resources to our community to get funding for new schools and i am proud of that. very supportive of the new issues that are been initiated. we are doing a lot and i never voted for a mandate. it is one of the things that is killing communities like springfield and everybody in western massachusetts and throughout our great state. it is the high cost of education that is driving the train. just go back because i have time, student interest rates, the bottom line is that you cannot rewrite my record. we made sure we did without raising taxes. constant criticisms on the fact that i do not want to raise taxes on many americans. we did it without raising taxes by tweeting federal programs --
tweaking federal programs. i worked very hard as a state senator and continue to work with the community college. we found at a community college that you have opportunities where businesses in the area are working directly with the university to develop a work force you can actually have for that particular business. that is something i have supported and will continue to support. >> thank you. 90 seconds. >> you were asking about what we would do for the younger kids and education. it is a wonderful question. i am proud to be from massachusetts. we have made investments in education and our kids have done well. they have not done as well if we think they can if we do better. the way i see this is that massachusetts, the local cities and towns, should come up with their own ideas, but they need a good federal partner in washington. i will give you one example of what a good federal partner can
do. here she can put money into stem and mathematics. to help make sure we have more teachers and schools, make sure they have the opportunities to get the grounding they need to go on to community college, get better training, and be part of the well at-educated work force. moving down to younger kids, i want to make clear that every dollar we invest is something that pays off many times over that child's lifetime. it is an investment we should be making. we need to invest in our children. that is our moral responsibility and it is good economics. >> we agree. it is something i feel is very
important. growing up from here, i have been working very hard as a state representative and state senator to try to find ways we can do it all and provide good value for our dollar, accountability for our students and teachers, having parental involvement, and trying to find ways to stretch the dollars we paid to state and federal government. there is a lot more to do. we will hopefully continue the work. >> that is time. you have 30 seconds. >> i am glad senator brown agrees. i want to make clear that if the republicans take over control of the united states senate, they have made it clear that in order to pay for the tax cuts for the richest americans, they will make cuts elsewhere. what is the only proposal on the table? more than half a trillion dollars in cuts in education, basic infrastructure, and
research. to have a good, federal partner in washington, we have to make funding education a priority. >> this question goes to elizabeth warren. can you tell us where you would look first and last? can you identify two federal programs that can be cut, and two he would work hard to protect? >> you are exactly right. we will have to take a balanced approach. i would be clear in terms of cutting the agricultural subsidy programs. it is time to cut in our military budget. winding out of one m we can realign our priorities. on the other hand, i want to make clear i will not go to washington to cut medicare or social security benefits. [applause]
when we talk about a balanced approach, we need to be talking about spending cuts and we need to be talking about increasing revenues. it takes both to close the deficit. we both submitted our economic proposals to the boston globe. they were sent out four independent economic analysis. what the independent economists found is that i was 67% more effective at cutting the deficit then senator brown. why? because i am willing to make cuts. i am willing to make substantial cuts. i sport -- i support substantial cuts. i also believe we have to raise revenues. that is what it will take to get serious about our deficit. i truly believe on this one, this is about our children and grandchildren. we cannot leave it to our grandchildren to pay off our debt banks.
>> great question. we are in the $16 trillion national debt bank. we are in another trillion dollar deficit. you cannot keep borrowing to pay our bills. when we are talking about cutting military spending, we have party cut in half a trillion dollars. that affects many people in this room and people watching. i have been battling as a member of the arms services committee to try to find the resources to protect our men and women who are serving. we have sequestration coming up. we are trying to work in a bipartisan effort to step back from that. i cut $2 trillion as a result of obamacare. it is not good for massachusetts. creches businesses. i would sell unused property. we do not need it. i would do a top to bottom review of every program. if there is anybody listening who thinks my opponent is a tax cutter, let me get rid of that myth. i never voted for a tax
increase. i would not be raising taxes on any american. we need to have a balanced budget amendment. it is something we need. we do it in the state, homes, businesses. that is a big difference. the first thing, every single time, is to raise taxes. the national federation of t businesses said many people in this room would be affected by the cuts in her plan. i would not be putting the businesses of individuals and their lives in jeopardy. >> senator brown says he will cut health care. keep in mind, that is scored as it is going to increase our debt and not increase it. -- not decrease it. he cites a study, the same thing out of governor romney's strategy.
he was wrong then and he is wrong now. it does not analyze anything i did. it does not use the president's. keep in mind to this group is. can i finish? >> 10 more seconds. >> this group endorses senate -- senator brown and other republicans and refers to ted kennedy as public enemy number one. that is who they are. >> that is 15. but 45 seconds. >> if anybody thinks the national health care bill is not going to be back for massachusetts, they do not understand the bills. they have not read the bills. it dramatically increases 18 new taxes. medical device companies in massachusetts will be first. our seniors would medicare will be hammered in the coverages and care they get in hospitals. when you look at the chamber of commerce, is the pre mayor independent -- premier independent group. she says the numbers were made
up here they are not made up. it was said her involvement in this race is catastrophically anti-business. we cannot continue to focus on raising taxes. >> thank you both very much. in both the presidential and did your campaigns, i have heard the words come the middle class" used a lot. what do you mean? income levels, values? >> i do not think it is values. it is in comes. i have worked hard to get property valuations and get could trash, please, and fire contracts. trying to maximize the dollars we all pay. i think about hard-working men and women who have one, two, or
a third job. sometimes kids contribute. the number of areas in which state you are at. the bottom line is is all about whose side you're on. we know professor warren has said she is fighting for you and the middle class. she is fighting in fact for the large corporations, travels insurance, giving almost a quarter of a million dollars, fighting to deny people benefits for asbestos settlements. fighting to protect large corporations over the union workers who are going to get their health care. also, dodd chemical, working to make sure there is limited liability for women with faulty breast implants. it is about whose side you're on. it is about fighting for the middle class. i want to continue as i have before. one thing we cannot be doing right now in the middle of this recession is by taking more money out of people's are working pocketbooks and wallets and giving it to the federal government. they are like pigs in a trough.
they will take and take and take. [applause] >> i am losing control. >> this has been my life's work. let's face it. america's middle class has been getting hammered. washington does not work for them. they work for those who can hire and an army of lobbyists and lawyers. that is why i am in this race. what is america's middle-class tax the people who work hard and play by the rules, and invest in the future. they believe if they do those things, their kids are going to have a better chance than they did and their grandkids are going to have a better chance than that. that is what i see as the two different missions in this race overall. the race in massachusetts and the race nationally. the republicans have a vision. cut taxes for those at the top and let the chips fall where they may for everybody else.
i think we can do better for that. we can do better than that for america's middle-class and working families, and america's poor families who want those opportunities. i believe everybody pays a fair scared. that means the millionaires. that means the billionaires'. that means the big oil companies. [applause] then we make those investments in the future. we invest in education, infrastructure, we invest in ourselves and our kids. that is why those of the issues i want to talk about in this race. senator brown does not want to talk about his voting record. he just wants to launch attacks. thank you. >> it is about whose side you were on. when you are talking about getting hammered, i suggest you put down the hammer. it is your regulations and your policies that will be hurting. audience: boo!
>> we will give you a couple extra seconds. >> your policies will be hurting middle-class families and every class of family in the united states. you have massachusetts lobbyists working for you. in terms of an army of lawyers, you are one of them. you went out and got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight against -- >> that is time. 40 seconds. >> i am glad you raised the question of regulations. he is right. i went to washington " -- to fight to make sure people cannot get cheated on mortgages, credit cards, and state loans. that is what i fought for. that agency, just out there a year on its own, and it has already returned nearly half a billion dollars to consumers who have gotten cheated. i think that is the way the system ought to work. i will continue to fight for
that. >> i will give you each 15 seconds. >> i commend you for your work on that. i voted for it. it never would have passed it by was not the deciding vote. audience: boo! [applause] >> i actually made it better. we put in a provision to protect our men and women's managers. i commend you for that. i'm glad i was able to help put it into the fa effect. >> it came out in the boston globe he was out working in secret to weaken the regulations so the biggest financial institutions on wall street would not have to deal with such difficult regulations. i think this is one more case of senator brown making it clear
where he stands. he has taken more than $2 million in contributions, and he really delivers for wall street. >> i owe you five seconds, senator. >> i would like to start right now. >> i am finding it. >> i will fight for massachusetts jobs. the company she is referring to that i was fighting for, i was proud to do it. >> perfect. back on time. i will give everybody who is watching the time about two seconds to take a breather. let's go. where would you stand if the idea of eliminating the mortgage increased tax deduction were put forward as part of a tax reform or deficit reduction? >> i would not support ending the mortgage deduction for middle-class families. they have been hammered enough and they just cannot take it. my answer is for working people, no.
>> reset. >> i am sorry. >> you have a minute. >> you are asking the right question. where are we going to raise revenues? what senator brown has done is take the pledge, making sure he has said he will not raise taxes by $1, on millionaires, billionaires', big oil. that exactly is what he has voted for. he asked billions of the reasons billionaires' to pay their fair share -- asking billionaires to pay their fair share, he voted no. the industry where the big five made $137 billion in profits last year, senator brown said keep those subsidies flowing to the oil companies. for me, what this is all about
is we have to find the right balance in the system. we have to go to a sensible place. when the question comes of the aspiring tax credits, so taxes could go up for 98% of the families here in massachusetts, and 97% of small businesses, senator brown said he voted against that, would let taxes go up, unless there were bigger breaks for the top 2%. this is about whose side you stand on. >> 90 seconds. >> i am glad i am agreed with. we should not raise taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession. i will not be raising taxes on any one in massachusetts or anyone in the united states. we are in a fiscal and financial emergency right now. we do not need to do every single time, say take, take, take more and more. we have our own buffett rule in massachusetts. we have an opportunity for
people who want to pay more. they can. professor warren chose not to check that box and make that contribution. it is ok to take everybody else 's money, but before we do that, we need to practice what we preach. when you talk about oil and our energy producers, i am not sure anybody has been to the pump. it is about $4 a gallon. if you think by eliminating deductions or raising taxes on our energy producers in the middle of the winter, they will pass those tax increases off to you. you will be paying more as you fill up your car, you're oil tanks, and we need to have a comprehensive reform. we need to do a review of our tax code. we cannot be pitting people against each other. it needs to be done in a bipartisan manner. i have done it.
i will continue to do it. i am proud. >> 30 seconds. >> i think i heard senator brown say that instead of working for the people of massachusetts, he has taken a pledge to work for grover norquist to make sure no tax still occurs that costs millionaires or billionaires' even $1 more. what he has said he will do is let more than $2 trillion of tax expire for 90% of families in massachusetts. is not enough of a big break on billionaires'. >> the tea -- the 2% of the people out there creating jobs. many of the people of heart -- are hired by those job creators. it makes a great sound bite.
but those aspiring tax cuts will only fund the government for 10 or 15 days. we need -- we need a comprehensive approach on this. >> very good. how do you feel you differ from your opponent in the area of women's rights and women's issues. specifically, paycheck fairness act, states that have moved and tried to require special preliminaries procedures for women who need to be seeking medical procedures. >> good question. i live in a house full of women. two of them are right there. they have been fighting since i was -- i have been fighting since i was 6 years old to protect women's rights. we are both pro-choice. i believe in women getting the
same pay and benefits. as you have heard, when you refer to paycheck fairness, right idea but the law wrong bill. -- but the wrong bill. when it comes to women's rights, i am pro-choice. when the house triedi am a co-se violence against women act because i have lived through that. it is important to protect women, especially then -- when they are being ofabuse. make sure they can get the care and coverage is they need. when it comes to protecting women's rights, i am happy to continue to fight, as i have done in the past. you can cherry pick votes and try to distort things.
the bottom line is i am very happy with what i have done. >> that is time. 90 seconds. >> i have no doubt that senator brown is a good husband and a good father to his daughters. this is an issue that affects all of our daughters and their granddaughters. what matters here is how senator brown votes. he has gone to washington and he has had good votes. he has had exactly one chance to vote for equal pay for equal work, and he voted no. he had exactly one chance to vote for insurance coverage for birth control and other preventive services for women. he voted no. he had one chance to vote for a pro-choice woman from massachusetts to the united states supreme court, and he voted no. those are bad votes for women. the women of massachusetts need
a senator they can count on, not some of the time, but all of the time. [applause] i want to go to washington to be there for all of our daughters and granddaughters. this one really matters. there is a lot at stake. >> you have another 20 seconds. >> i think that says it all. i am a mother of a daughter and a grandmother of granddaughters. this is about their future. i want to be blunt. we should not be fighting about equal pay for equal work and access for birth control. it is 2012. these issues were resolved years ago. until the republicans brought them back. >> that is time. 30 seconds perry >> we are both pro-choice. we are both working very hard. i think we would agree on that fact. i will not be pitting catholics against their church and their faith.
i will fight to make sure any legislation that comes up is not going to be basically prohibiting people to practice their faith. we did it in massachusetts. we already have the ability to do both. we actually provide care and coverages women deserve, and we provide the ability for people in churches and hospitals to practice their faith. >> time. apologize for any confusion. you will have 40 seconds. >> i just want to be clear. this is how the senator votes. he comes up with a lot of excuses. he had one chance to vote for equal pay for equal work any voted against it. he had one chance to vote for insurance coverage on birth control and he voted against it. he had one chance to vote for a pro-choice woman to the united states supreme court, and he
voted against term. these votes matter. roh vs. wade may hang in the balance. access to birth control and equal pay for equal work, women are entitled to these. this is not right. >> i did not have a chance to respond. i hope she proves me wrong. she did not have a traditional court experience as a prerequisite. "the boston globe" and united chamber of commerce said the right idea, the wrong bill. you need to read the bill. to give people an early christmas to allow them to hurt small businesses, i will not do it. >> it is like it was with the millionaires, billionaires', and oil companies. he has a lot of excuses for standing on the other side. when it came down to it in critical votes, he was not there for women. massachusetts win and deserve a senator they can count on all the time.
[applause] >> that this time. thank you. mitt romney now wants a larger role for the united states in syria. he would like to see as helping and working with others to supply rebels with arms. what should we do about syria and what american involvement and intervention would you support to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. >> what he is a link to his own people is terrible. it has to stop. he has to go. in iran, what is critical is they are not permitted to develop nuclear weapons. they are a danger to the region, our ally israel, and they are a danger to the entire world. with a nuclear iran, we not only have the risks of more terrorists getting access to nuclear weapons, more people in the region one nuclear weapons, it is destabilizing to the
world. it means the whole world has an interest in making sure that they do not develop nuclear weapons. that is why i support the approach that has been used by president obama. that is he takes nothing off the table when he goes in. but he comes in and tries to work with other countries in order to bring pressure, in order, in this case, to put economic sanctions in place. in the case of syria, to provide support that we think is appropriate. i think the president is doing the right thing. he is cautious, he is measured, but he is firm. that is what we need when dealing with that part of the world. i just want to say i am really glad to support president obama as commander in chief, and and do not want to see mitt romney in that job. >> that is time. >> i said on the armed services
committee. [applause] homeland, and veterans. i want to make sure our soldiers have the tools and resources to do their jobs and do them well and come home. if they are not well, we need to get them in the veterans administration. elizabeth warren wants to cut. we cannot allow iran to have nuclear weapons. i agree with you on that. i have been working to make an effort to destabilize the currency of the central bank in iran. the sanctions we have done are good but we need to have the president implement them. when it comes to syria, assad does need to go. we need to work with moderates in opposition and provide them with military hardware and support financially so they can do battle. the citizens there, they had -- they are being slaughtered by
the thousands. when it comes to libya, i thought what happened there is unacceptable. i thought the handling of it was unacceptable. we need to have a full and immediate investigation to make sure we find out what happened. more importantly, iran, my opponents said earlier we need a nuanced approach. there is no such thing. there is only one person who will stand with israel. >> another 30 seconds. >> i have three older brothers, all of whom served in the military. my oldest brother was career military. he served in vietnam. i have some sense of not only capable theyd a b are. that is why i believe the best we can do for our military is be very careful and thoughtful about when we ask them to vote -- to go to war.
we need to have clear objectives. we need to know what our plan is and how we plan to get out. >> you can take up to 40. >> we have the greatest fighting force in the history of the world. our men and women who have served have done a remarkable job. i saw what the soldiers were doing. when duty calls, they are there. i am very proud of that. we need to make sure we provide them with the tools and resources. when they are dealing with is happening over there, it is troubling. we need to make sure we can work with leaders over there who will give our embassy personnel the right information. i am not sure that was done in libya. >> another question. brack could call for cuts for many defense related programs in massachusetts.
if that happens, where would you stand for cuts to trim the deficit, or to prefer pentagon spending and jobs provided for the economy in massachusetts? >> great question. i am still serving in the national guard. i have been that -- been there in that capacity. and as a senator, making sure we can provide a good analysis as to what is going on. the jobs are critical. we have a strong defense industry in massachusetts. we need to make sure we can protect them, as well. it will be a challenge. i worked on the first base closure when i was a state senator. i have been fighting and working now, meeting with the personnel. also, at the air force base. to make sure we provide them. as a ranking member of armed services and having the ability to meet with these people and get the information and battle in a consistent basis for them,
i am looking forward to that opportunity. as you know, especially, they have a mission where their proficiency is so much better than the active forces, and to think we will put that in jeopardy because a political agenda, i will not do it. we both want to support our military. i would argue that based on my experience, i have the ability to do better. that is not the only challenge when you are talking about stretching the almighty dollars. we earn a financial emergency. we need to take an approach where we can put everything on the table, looking at the top to bottom review. trying to make sure we can do the best with what we have. >> 30's -- 90 seconds. >> here is the problem. we both want to protect the military. we have a big deficit. when senator brown and other republicans take the grover norquist pledge, and they say they will not raise money for
millionaires and billionaires, they will not close the oil subsidies, what they are saying is they are just not serious about cutting the deficit, bringing the budget back into alignment. that means we will trigger across-the-board cuts. those cuts for the military is the worst possible way we could go. it is bad for the country. it is that for us here in massachusetts. here is why. it keeps lopping off 10%, 15%. we need to move -- use this opportunity to think about the military we need going forward in the 21st century. here is what i am prepared to do. i am prepared to get out there and fight, to talk about what the c5 galaxy means. this is the place where we have giant planes and take big groups and big equipment and have disaster relief all run the world. that is why there should not be a penny of cuts there.
the cuts need to be in places like the standing army. we do not need the same size standing army as we did when we were fighting two wars. what we need to do is we need to get serious. put it on the table, including revenues. that is how we get serious. that is how we protect our military. >> that is time. another 30 seconds. >> great sound bites, but when you are talking about a military personnel, i have been doing it for 2.5 years. working with all of our military bases. i have visited there. i know what the missions are. it would be devastating to lose those services in massachusetts. you said you want to cut more military money. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot cut military and protect the c5's. cannot do both. to think we will do it in any other way by taxing and spending against our job creators, it will not happen.
>> 37 seconds. >> senator brown just ran on this. as long as we do not bring the budget into balance, there it -- there will be across the board cuts. that is what will hurt us in massachusetts. that is what will hurt us in our military bases and the investments we make in research and development. we need to get more revenue on the table and get serious about reshaping our military budget. it is no longer about a big standing army. it is about making the investments that we need in the future. cyber security, research and development, and the c5. >> that is all the time we have. we have no time for questions. closing statements. a coin toss determined mr. brown will be first. one minute and 30 seconds. >> thank you. thank you for the folks who are watching. thank you for your support and endorsement, mayor. i want to say, aside from my
marriage of 26 years and the birth of my kids come up being at your senator is the greatest honor i could ever have. there are many challenges here. after the tornado, i was here. i am continuing to work with the mayor and his team to get reimbursements to fight to make sure we can get springfield and the surrounding areas back on their feet. as somebody who has been working very hard in a truly bipartisan manner to get things done, i am trying to work together to get things done. this is a time where i need your vote. i am asking for your support. this is a critical election. let me further say that when we are talking about taxes and jobs and spending, the first thing out of anybody's mouth who is running in this race, professor warren in particular, is that we need to raise taxes.
we need to take your hard-earned money and give it to washington. we cannot. we need to work together in a bipartisan manner. i have been doing it. she referenced somebody the other day who she would work with. he goes 80% with his party. i am at 54%. i cannot do this alone. i would appreciate your vote. thank you. [applause] >> please, we are very short on time. one minute and 30 seconds. >> this afternoon, i was driving in the car with bruce. we were driving along the same road and same car became this summer when we drove out to the peak with our granddaughters. we climbed on all sorts of things and drove fast on the mountain. it was a reminder to me of what this race is about. for me, this is about our children and about our grandchildren. there are two very different
visions of how we build a future for them. senator brown and the republicans believe we do that by cutting taxes for those at the very top and then we let everybody else pick up the pieces. i believe we can do better than that. we must do better than that. i believe everybody pays a fair share. even millionaires, billionaires', and even big oil companies. when everybody pays a fair share, we can all make the investments in the future. we have to invest in education for our children. our public universities, public schools, we have to make those investments to have an educated workforce and a real future. we have to make the investments in infrastructure. we see it in western massachusetts. those investments are what is going to create our future. we have to invest in research. that is what it is about for me. i am asking for your vote so that together we can build a
real future for all of our children and grandchildren. [applause] >> thank you very much. please. i have about 15 seconds to say thank you for the springfield public form, all of the members for making this possible, a great big thanks to a senator scott brown and to elizabeth warren for coming and spending time with us. it does not matter what you did tonight. if you do not get out and vote november 6. thank you for watching. >> the final debate between senator brown and elizabeth warren. c-span is bringing you live house and senate debates from around the country. it is all part of our campaign 2012 coverage. live on c-span, c-span radio, and get live updates on twitter or find us on facebook.
watch the vice-presidential debate tonight -- tomorrow night. watch and in days. coming up next, live coverage of the arizona senate debate between rep jeff flake and challenger richard carmona. that will be followed by the house oversight committee. here is a preview. >> the problem i have is that the state department is basically saying, mr. nordstrom did not do his job and he did not make a formal request with justification. the ambassador did not do his job. he did not make a good enough case. that is what you are standing behind a today in addition to saying there were five people there. there were four. a compound -- compound owned by us, it was breached less than 60 days before the murder of the
ambassador in that facility. is that not true? >> sir, we have the correct number of assets in bank has the at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon. >> my time has expired. to start off by saying you had the correct number and our ambassador and three other individuals are dead and three people are in hospitals recovering because it only took moments to breach that facility, somehow it does not seem to ring true to the american people. >> this month, as the presidential candidates before debate, we are asking middle and high school students to send a message to the president as part of this year's student documentary competition. students will answer the question, what is the most important issue the president should consider in 2013? it is for a chance to win a grand paradise -- grand prize of $5,000. grades 6 to 12. grades 6 to 12.